Transcript of "Osimopolitika20v2"

1.
Growing up into adulthood:
Gov2.0 from anecdotes to policy
Politika 2.0, San Sebastian, 23rd June 2009
David Osimo - Tech4i2 ltd.

2.
What I will try to answer today
• what is web 2.0?
1. some bottom-up examples
2. from anecdotes to analisis: why they matter
3. from spontaneous to structured: what could
government do
4. from structured to systemic: a new vision for
government?
2

3.
So far ICT has not fundamentally
changed government
• 1990s: ICT expected
to make government
more transparent,
efﬁcient and user Supply Demand
oriented
• 2005+: disillusion as
burocracy not much
different from Max
Weber’s description
3

4.
Many projects of web2.0 in public services,
but not by government
Source: own elaboration of IPTS PS20 project

7.
Peer-to-patent: an inside look
• Eighty-nine (89) percent of participating patent examiners thought the presentation of prior art that the
received from the Peer-to-Patent community was clear and well formatted. Ninety-two (92) percent re
Usage and impact
ported that they would welcome examining another application with public participation.
•
• Self-regulated: need examiners want to see Peer-to-Patent implemented as reg
Seventy-three (73) percent ofcontrol
critical mass to participating
ofﬁce “bad apples”
practice.
• 2000(21) percent of participating examiners stated that prior art submitted by the Peer-to-Pate
users
•
• 9/23 applications used
Twenty-one
community was “inaccessible” by the USPTO.
by USPTO
• • 73% of USPTO the
The USPTO received one third-party prior art submission for every 500 applications published in 2007. Pe
examiners endorse
Patent reviewers have provided an average of almost 5 prior art references for each application in the p
project
• pilot being extended
and adopted in Japan
“We’re very pleased with this initial outcome. Patents of questionable merit are of little value to
anyone. We much prefer that the best prior art be identiﬁed so that the resulting patent is truly
bulletproof. This is precisely why we eagerly agreed to sponsor this project and other patent
quality initiatives. We are proud of this result, which validates the concept of Peer-to-Patent,
and can only improve the quality of patents produced by the patent system.”
— Manny Schecter, Associate General Counsel for Intellectual Property, IBM 7

13.
Why?/2
Because it does not impose change (e-gov 1.0) but
acts on leverages, drivers and incentives:
• building on unique and speciﬁc knowledge of users: the
“cognitive surplus”
• the power of visualization
• reducing information and power asymmetries
• peer recognition rather than hierarchy
• reducing the cost of collective action
• changing the expectations of citizens
13

31.
A new vision starting to take
shape
To sum up, transparency, which enhances accountability and choice, can be a powerful driver, a catalyst and
a flagship for “transformational government”, rather than for “eGovernment” only.
6 What is new? 31

33.
A new innovation model for
public services
• A new WAY to innovate public services
• Continuous and incremental,
• open and non hyerarchical
• not only by government: civil society, citizens, civil
servants
• A new effective DRIVER to address the challenges
of innovating public services
• citizens’ ratings and reviews: democratization of
voice where there is no exit possibility
• more openness and transparency expected
• wider availability of IT tools for innovation by
citizens, civil servants, civil society
33

36.
Are these services used?
• in the back-ofﬁce, yes
• in the front-ofﬁce, not too much: few
thousand users as an average
• still: this is much more than before!
• some (petty) speciﬁc causes have viral take-
up (mobile phones fees, road tax charge
schemes)
• very low costs of experimentation
36

38.
Is there a visible impact?
Yes, more than the usage:
• in the back ofﬁce: evidence used by US Patent
Ofﬁce, used to detect Iraqi insurgents
• in the front ofﬁce, making government really
accountable and helping other citizens
• but there is risk of negative impact as well
38

39.
Web 2.0 is a set of values more
than a set of technologies
User as producer, collective intelligence,
Values openness “by default”, perpetual beta, ease of
use
Blogs, Podcast, Wiki, Social Networking, Peer-
Technology to-peer, MPOGames, Mash-up
Ajax, Microformats, RSS/XML
39

46.
Peer-to-patent: uso y impacto
• Eighty-nine (89) percent of participating patent examiners thought the presentation of prior art that the
received from the Peer-to-Patent community was clear and well formatted. Ninety-two (92) percent re
• Auto regulado:
ported that they would welcome examining another application with public participation.
necesita masa critica
• para evitar “manzanas
Seventy-three (73) percent of participating examiners want to see Peer-to-Patent implemented as reg
ofﬁce malas”
practice.
• 2000 contributores
•
• 9/23 resultados
Twenty-one (21) percent of participating examiners stated that prior art submitted by the Peer-to-Pate
utilizados por el
community was “inaccessible” by the USPTO.
USPTO
•
•
The USPTO received one third-party prior art submission for every 500 applications published in 2007. Pe
73% de los
Patent reviewers have provided an average of almost 5 prior art references for each application in the p
examinadores USPTO
quieren que siga
• piloto es extendido
“We’re very pleased with this initial outcome. Patents of questionable merit are of little value to
anyone. We much prefer that the best prior art be identiﬁed so that the resulting patent is truly
bulletproof. This is precisely why we eagerly agreed to sponsor this project and other patent
quality initiatives. We are proud of this result, which validates the concept of Peer-to-Patent,
and can only improve the quality of patents produced by the patent system.”
— Manny Schecter, Associate General Counsel for Intellectual Property, IBM 46

63.
Thank you
david.osimo@tech4i2.com
Further information:
Osimo, 2008. Web2.0 in government: why and how? www.jrc.es
Osimo, 2008. Benchmarking e-government in the web 2.0 era: what to
measure, and how. European Journal of ePractice, August 2008.
http://egov20.wordpress.com
64

65.
A new innovation model for
public services
• A new WAY to innovate public services
• Continuous and incremental,
• open and non hyerarchical
• not only by government: civil society, citizens, civil
servants
• A new effective DRIVER to address the challenges
of innovating public services
• citizens’ ratings and reviews: democratization of
voice where there is no exit possibility
• more openness and transparency expected
• wider availability of IT tools for innovation by
citizens, civil servants, civil society
66

68.
Are these services used?
• in the back-ofﬁce, yes
• in the front-ofﬁce, not too much: few
thousand users as an average
• still: this is much more than before!
• some (petty) speciﬁc causes have viral take-
up (mobile phones fees, road tax charge
schemes)
• very low costs of experimentation
69

70.
Is there a visible impact?
Yes, more than the usage:
• in the back ofﬁce: evidence used by US Patent
Ofﬁce, used to detect Iraqi insurgents
• in the front ofﬁce, making government really
accountable and helping other citizens
• but there is risk of negative impact as well
71

71.
Web 2.0 is a set of values more
than a set of technologies
User as producer, collective intelligence,
Values openness “by default”, perpetual beta, ease of
use
Blogs, Podcast, Wiki, Social Networking, Peer-
Technology to-peer, MPOGames, Mash-up
Ajax, Microformats, RSS/XML
72